5 ms·

It's not accepted. The referees were very kind and gave the benefit of doubt to the authors and gave them the option of revising the paper. I think the Journal

by kghose 14y ago

It's not accepted. The referees were very kind and gave the benefit of doubt to the authors and gave them the option of revising the paper. I think the Journal should be lauded for being open minded but principled. I think the authors should fess up and offer the reviewers a beer for wasting their time. PS. Original post http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102 http://thatsmathematics.com/blog/archives/102 PPS. Well, after reading the response letter it seems the Journal was kind of eager to publish. In the Neurosciences I'm used to more guarded language from editors even for papers that have basically been accepted.

anonymouz 14y ago
The paper was accepted, under condition that these comments are addressed. Considering that the paper contains no meaningful content whatsoever, it should have been outright rejected. It seems that the journal is one of a number of recent "low tier" (putting it mildly) journals that mainly profit of the processing fee they collect to publish the paper. I doubt this could have gotten accepted, even conditionally, by a more established journal with a reputation to lose.
- im3w1l 14y ago
  Here is the paper in full: http://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2012/10/19/math-journal-publishes-computer-generated-fake-paper/ http://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2012/10/19/math-journal... Well, if they rewrote the abstract, and proved their results, it would have meaningful content..
  - anonymouz 14y ago
    I've seen it. They'd have to rewrite the abstract, state an actual result, prove it and rewrite everything in between. The "paper" is just grammatically correct but non-sensical glibberish from start to end. If a referee accepts this paper conditionally, he might as well accept a blank page on condition that the author will put something there.
impendia 14y ago
"Benefit of doubt" contradicts the principle of peer review. No credible working research mathematician (I am one) could look at that paper for more than fifteen seconds and regard it with anything other than uproarious laughter.

by kghose 14y ago

anonymouz 14y ago

The paper was accepted, under condition that these comments are addressed. Considering that the paper contains no meaningful content whatsoever, it should have been outright rejected. It seems that the journal is one of a number of recent "low tier" (putting it mildly) journals that mainly profit of the processing fee they collect to publish the paper. I doubt this could have gotten accepted, even conditionally, by a more established journal with a reputation to lose.

im3w1l 14y ago
Here is the paper in full: http://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2012/10/19/math-journal-publishes-computer-generated-fake-paper/ http://blog.richmond.edu/physicsbunn/2012/10/19/math-journal... Well, if they rewrote the abstract, and proved their results, it would have meaningful content..
- anonymouz 14y ago
  I've seen it. They'd have to rewrite the abstract, state an actual result, prove it and rewrite everything in between. The "paper" is just grammatically correct but non-sensical glibberish from start to end. If a referee accepts this paper conditionally, he might as well accept a blank page on condition that the author will put something there.

impendia 14y ago

"Benefit of doubt" contradicts the principle of peer review. No credible working research mathematician (I am one) could look at that paper for more than fifteen seconds and regard it with anything other than uproarious laughter.